A9-9425 vs A4-7210

#ad
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregated performance score

A4-7210
2015
4 cores / 4 threads
1.08
A9-9425
2016
2 cores / 2 threads
1.77
+63.9%

A9-9425 outperforms A4-7210 by 64% based on our aggregated benchmark results.

General info

Comparing A4-7210 and A9-9425 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in performance ranking22841899
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesAMD A-SeriesAMD Bristol Ridge
Architecture codenameCarrizo-L (2015)Stoney Ridge (2016−2019)
Release date7 May 2015 (8 years ago)31 May 2016 (7 years ago)
Current price$177 $561

Technical specs

A4-7210 and A9-9425 basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.

Physical cores4 (Quad-Core)2 (Dual-core)
Threads42
Base clock speed1.8 GHz3.1 GHz
Boost clock speed2.2 GHz3.7 GHz
L1 cacheno data128K (per core)
L2 cache2048 KB1 MB (per core)
Chip lithography28 nm28 nm
Die sizeno data124.5 mm2
Maximum core temperature90 °C90 °C
Maximum case temperature (TCase)no data74 °C
Number of transistors930 Million1,200 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
Unlocked multiplierNoNo

Compatibility

Information on A4-7210 and A9-9425 compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.

Number of CPUs in a configurationno data1
SocketFT3bFT4
Power consumption (TDP)12-25 Watt15 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A4-7210 and A9-9425. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsMMX, SSE4.2, AES, AVX, BMI1, F16C, AMD64, VTDDR4-2133 RAM (1 channel), PCIe 3, MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, BMI2, ABM, TBM, FMA4, XOP, SMEP, CPB, AES-NI, RDRAND
AES-NI++
FMAFMA4+
AVX++
PowerTune-no data
TrueAudio-no data
PowerNow+no data
PowerGating+no data
Out-of-band client management-no data
VirusProtect+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A4-7210 and A9-9425 are enumerated here.

AMD-V1+
IOMMU 2.0+no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A4-7210 and A9-9425. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3L-1600DDR4
Max memory channels1no data

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics card
Compare
AMD Radeon R3 GraphicsAMD Radeon R5 (Stoney Ridge)
Enduro+no data
Switchable graphics1no data
UVD+no data
VCE+no data

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of A4-7210 and A9-9425 integrated GPUs.

DisplayPort+no data
HDMI+no data

Graphics API support

APIs supported by A4-7210 and A9-9425 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.

DirectXDirectX® 12no data
Vulkan1no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by A4-7210 and A9-9425.

PCIe version2.0no data

Synthetic benchmark performance

Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

A4-7210 1.08
A9-9425 1.77
+63.9%

A9-9425 outperforms A4-7210 by 64% based on our aggregated benchmark results.


Passmark

Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.

Benchmark coverage: 68%

A4-7210 1668
+10.8%
A9-9425 1506

A4-7210 outperforms A9-9425 by 11% in Passmark.

GeekBench 5 Single-Core

GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.

Benchmark coverage: 42%

A4-7210 214
A9-9425 320
+49.5%

A9-9425 outperforms A4-7210 by 50% in GeekBench 5 Single-Core.

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.

Benchmark coverage: 42%

A4-7210 588
+22%
A9-9425 482

A4-7210 outperforms A9-9425 by 22% in GeekBench 5 Multi-Core.

Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core

Cinebench R10 is an ancient ray tracing benchmark for processors by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. Its single core version uses just one CPU thread to render a futuristic looking motorcycle.

Benchmark coverage: 20%

A4-7210 1732
A9-9425 2686
+55.1%

A9-9425 outperforms A4-7210 by 55% in Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core.

Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 10 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R10 using all the processor threads. Possible number of threads is limited by 16 in this version.

Benchmark coverage: 19%

A4-7210 5593
+28.9%
A9-9425 4338

A4-7210 outperforms A9-9425 by 29% in Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core.

3DMark06 CPU

3DMark06 is a discontinued DirectX 9 benchmark suite from Futuremark. Its CPU part contains two scenarios, one dedicated to artificial intelligence pathfinding, another to game physics using PhysX package.

Benchmark coverage: 19%

A4-7210 2681
+15.9%
A9-9425 2314

A4-7210 outperforms A9-9425 by 16% in 3DMark06 CPU.

wPrime 32

wPrime 32M is a math multi-thread processor test, which calculates square roots of first 32 million integer numbers. Its result is measured in seconds, so that the less is benchmark result, the faster the processor.

Benchmark coverage: 18%

A4-7210 26.94
A9-9425 25.83
+4.3%

A4-7210 outperforms A9-9425 by 4% in wPrime 32.

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 11.5 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R11.5 which uses all the processor threads. A maximum of 64 threads is supported in this version.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

A4-7210 2
+30%
A9-9425 2

A4-7210 outperforms A9-9425 by 30% in Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core.

Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 15 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R15 which uses all the processor threads.

Benchmark coverage: 15%

A4-7210 157
+25.6%
A9-9425 125

A4-7210 outperforms A9-9425 by 26% in Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core.

Cinebench 15 64-bit single-core

Cinebench R15 (standing for Release 15) is a benchmark made by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version (sometimes called Single-Thread) only uses a single processor thread to render a room full of reflective spheres and light sources.

Benchmark coverage: 15%

A4-7210 46
A9-9425 76
+65.2%

A9-9425 outperforms A4-7210 by 65% in Cinebench 15 64-bit single-core.

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core

Cinebench R11.5 is an old benchmark by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version loads a single thread with ray tracing to render a glossy room full of crystal spheres and light sources.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

A4-7210 0.56
A9-9425 0.9
+60.7%

A9-9425 outperforms A4-7210 by 61% in Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core.

TrueCrypt AES

TrueCrypt is a discontinued piece of software that was widely used for on-the-fly-encryption of disk partitions, now superseded by VeraCrypt. It contains several embedded performance tests, one of them being TrueCrypt AES, which measures data encryption speed using AES algorithm. Result is encryption speed in gigabytes per second.

Benchmark coverage: 13%

A4-7210 1.2
+26.3%
A9-9425 1

A4-7210 outperforms A9-9425 by 26% in TrueCrypt AES.

WinRAR 4.0

WinRAR 4.0 is an outdated version of a popular file archiver. It contains an internal speed test, using 'Best' setting of RAR compression on large chunks of randomly generated data. Its results are measured in kilobytes per second.

Benchmark coverage: 13%

A4-7210 1236
+38.7%
A9-9425 891

A4-7210 outperforms A9-9425 by 39% in WinRAR 4.0.

x264 encoding pass 1

x264 version 4.0 is a video encoding benchmark uses MPEG 4 x264 compression method to compress a sample HD (720p) video. Pass 1 is a faster variant that produces a constant bit rate output file. Its result is measured in frames per second, which means how many frames of the source video file were encoded per second.  

Benchmark coverage: 13%

A4-7210 51
+1.6%
A9-9425 51

A4-7210 outperforms A9-9425 by 2% in x264 encoding pass 1.

x264 encoding pass 2

x264 Pass 2 is a slower variant of x264 video compression that produces a variable bit rate output file, which results in better quality since the higher bit rate is used when it is needed more. Benchmark result is still measured in frames per second.  

Benchmark coverage: 13%

A4-7210 11
+12.4%
A9-9425 10

A4-7210 outperforms A9-9425 by 12% in x264 encoding pass 2.

Geekbench 3 32-bit single-core

Benchmark coverage: 5%

A4-7210 1207
A9-9425 2039
+68.9%

A9-9425 outperforms A4-7210 by 69% in Geekbench 3 32-bit single-core.

Geekbench 3 32-bit multi-core

Benchmark coverage: 5%

A4-7210 3524
+6%
A9-9425 3323

A4-7210 outperforms A9-9425 by 6% in Geekbench 3 32-bit multi-core.

Gaming performance

Advantages and disadvantages


Performance score 1.08 1.77
Integrated graphics card 1.33
Recency 7 May 2015 31 May 2016
Physical cores 4 2
Threads 4 2
Power consumption (TDP) 12 Watt 15 Watt

The A9-9425 is our recommended choice as it beats the A4-7210 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between A4-7210 and A9-9425, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


AMD A4-7210
A4-7210
AMD A9-9425
A9-9425

Similar processor comparisons

We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.

User Ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


3.1 135 votes

Rate A4-7210 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 1491 vote

Rate A9-9425 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions and comments

Here you can ask a question about A4-7210 or A9-9425, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.